Okay, so here's the tiny thing I take issue with, the whole concept of a "victim" is one where for whatever reason the person can't fold themselves out of that identity. It is my belief that the only reason we have so many "victims" in America is that we only allow humans to live in a dichotomy of helpless or hurtful. Either you are taking or needing, and I would argue that we have set up this mentality under a bunch of different social pressures like capitalism and individualism. You could extend this even further to include things like ableism. The entire point of my article is to let victims be angry. Anger, and perhaps social unrest is in my mind the only way to overthrow the dominant power structures that exist today. The crux of your argument in your article is that the left is destroying itself. But isn't this simply just the rise of globalization and technology that has allowed marginalized voices a platform on a global scale? For the first time, someone cannot say something on one part of the globe without it reaching everyone. The world is no longer even confined to literacy with videos. Information is spreading, and quickly too. I think so many social workers burn out because it feels like there is so many hurdles to overcome, like just getting people to understand sexism. Yes, white men can be constrained for all sorts of reasons but a white man devoid of all trauma, all pain, wealthy, mentally completely healthy and intelligent, socially well adjusted, good neighborhood and health... I mean what issues does this person have? Someone truly devoid of the social prism of any kind of oppression I would argue cannot be existing in the social world. Of course, white men face oppression too in so many ways.

While I agree intellectual discourse should be centered, I also think that "intellectuals" are often the most privileged to even be intellectuals at all. Even our concepts of intellectualism is polluted by values and cannot be "pure."

I mean to compare that Oprah Winfrey and a poor white person are a way to look at the hypocrisy of identity, I believe is to not understand identity. How Oprah became Oprah maybe because of her identity as a black woman, or she may have risen to power in spite of her race and gender. But she is going to face gendered and racial slurs that a poor white man will not. The poor white man faces a different kind of oppression than Oprah faces. Oppression and dominance cannot solely be looked through by the lens of economic status.

Dave Chappelle is being whacked by the left, and this is my biggest problem with Dave Chappelle. It's not that I don't like his comedy or his jokes. It's that he pinned the LGBTQ movement against the black movement. Instead of making white wealthy male viewers uncomfortable he pinned two marginalized groups against each other. It isn't an "either-or" fight to the death. Call me naive, but I like to think there's enough love, human compassion, and resources for everyone to fulfill their needs. Removing poverty from a situation is part of a social construct. You cannot divorce racism and poverty, and I know you said in your article you aren't trying to do that. But there is no economic system where reparations make sense without mass change in how white people treat black individuals. But see here's the thing, we do both agree. We both agree that the left should not be split. We both agree that virtue signaling and the left "talking the talk" is not going to do shit. We agree that ripping the framework to shreds is not helpful. We both want to challenge the structures in place and help people. But you believe identity is destroying this possibility, and I believe identity empowers it.